paśvādibhiś cāviśeṣāt| yathā hi paśvādayaḥ śabdādibhiḥ śrotrādīnāṃ saṃbandhe sati, śabdādivijñāne pratikūle jāte tato nivartante, anukūle ca pravartante; yathā daṇḍodyatakaraṃ puruṣam abhimukham upalabhya māṃ hantum ayam icchatīti palāyitum ārabhante, harita‐ tṛṇapūrṇapāṇim upalabhya taṃ praty abhimukhībhavanti; evaṃ puruṣā api vyutpannacittāḥ krūradṛṣṭīn ākrośataḥ khaḍgodyatakarān balavata upalabhya tato nivartante, tadviparītān prati pravartante, ataḥ samānaḥ paśvādibhiḥ puruṣāṇāṃ pramāṇaprameyavyavahāraḥ| paśvādīnāṃ ca prasiddho ’vivekapuraḥsaraḥ pratyakṣādivyavahāraḥ, tatsāmānyadarśanād vyutpattimatām api puruṣāṇāṃ pratyakṣādivyavahāras tatkālaḥ samāna iti niścīyate| (BSBh, pp. 40–43)
19）See, for example, Mayeda 1979, 47. Bibliography
Text Editions
Brahmasūtraśāṅkarabhāṣyam, Śrīmad-Appayyadīkṣita-viracita-Parimalopabṛṃhita-Śrīmad-Amalānandasa‐ rasvatī-praṇīta-Kalpataruvyākhyāyuta-Śrīmad-Vācaspatimiśrakṛta-Bhāmatīvilasitam. Edited by N. S. Anantakṛṣṇa Śāstri and Vasudev Laxman Śāstrī Paṇśīkar. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press, 1917. Pātañjala-yogasūtra-bhāṣya-vivaraṇam of Śaṅkara-bhagavatpāda. Edited by P. S. Rama Śāstrī and S. R.
Krishnamurthi Śāstrī. Madras Government Oriental Series, no. 94. Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, 1952.
Secondary Material
Bronkhorst, Johannes. 1985. “Patañjali and the Yoga sūtras.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 10: 191–213.
Harimoto, Kengo. 2014. God, Reason, and Yoga: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Commentary Ascribed to Śaṅkara on Pātañjalayogaśāstra 1.23–28. Indian and Tibetan Studies 1. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universität Hamburg.
Maas, Philipp. 2006. Samādhipāda: Das erste Kapitel des Pātañjalayogaśāstra zum ersten Mal kritisch ediert / The First Chapter of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra for the First Time Critically Edited. Indologica Halensis, Band 9. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Mayeda, Sengaku. 1979. A Thousand Teachings, The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, Translated with Introduction and Notes. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Wezler, Albrecht. 1983. “Philological Observations on the So-called Pātañjalayogasūtrabhā‐ ṣyavivaraṇa (Studies in the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa I).” Indo-Iranian Journal 25: 17–40. Key words Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa, Pātañjalayogaśāstra, Yogasūtra, Yogabhāṣya, pramāṇa,
pratyakṣa, Brahmasūtraśāṅkarabhāṣya, Śaṅkara
（Lecturer, Mahidol University）
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī’s Interpretation of Viṣṇu
Manabe Tomohiro
1. Introduction
As Madhusūdana Sarasvatī (ca. 16th cent.) was both a scholar of the Advaita Vedānta school and a believer of Viṣṇu, he tried to integrate the Vaiṣṇava teachings with Advaita doctrine. In his Paramahaṃsapriyā (PP), he grounds the vyūha theory of the Pāñcarātrika, one of the Vaiṣṇava schools, in Advaita doctrine. Furthermore, from
among the four forms of Viṣṇu1) taught in the vyūha theory, he assigns Vāsudeva to
brahman and Saṃkarṣaṇa to īśvara, that is conditioned brahman.2) On the other hand, in
both the PP and his Bhagavadgītāgūḍhārthadīpikā (BhGGAD), a commentary on the
Bhagavadgītā (BhG),3) Madhusūdana also states that Kṛṣṇa is an avatāra (reincarnation)
of Vāsudeva and identifies Kṛṣṇa with īśvara. Here the following problem arises: As it is said that both Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa are transformations of Vāsudeva and īśvara, are they to be understood as the same deity or are there differences between them? In this paper, I clarify their relationship through a consideration of Madhusūdana’s interpretation of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa.
2. The Interpretation of Īśvara in the Siddhāntabindu
Before considering Madhusūdana’s interpretation of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa itself, it is necessary to first ascertain what kind of existence īśvara represents in Madhusūdana’s Advaita doctrine. According to his Siddhāntabindu (SB), his interpretation of īśvara is
comprised of the following three elements:4) (1) the basic definition of īśvara: Īśvara is
the ātman (i.e., caitanya or brahman) conditioned by ajñāna (i.e., avidyā or māyā),5) which
in turn consists of three properties (i.e., sattva, rajas, and tamas);6) (2) the trimūrtivāda:
Īśvara takes the three different forms of Viṣṇu, Brahmā, and Śiva in accordance with the
mentioned in (2), īśvara appears as the infinite avatāras to bestow grace upon the devotees.8)
3. Madhusūdana’s Interpretation of Saṃkarṣaṇa
I will now consider Madhusūdana’s interpretation of Saṃkarṣaṇa. In the PP, Madhusūdana makes the following points concerning Saṃkarṣaṇa: Saṃkarṣaṇa is the
pure caitanya conditioned by avyākṛta, the nature of māyā.9) And this māyā is said to
consist of three properties in both the PP and the SB.10) Thus Madhusūdana considers
Saṃkarṣaṇa as the pure caitanya conditioned by māyā, which in turn consists of three properties. This corresponds to the basic definition of īśvara given above as the first of the three constituents of Madhusūdana’s interpretation of īśvara in the context of his Advaita doctrine. Therefore, for Madhusūdana, Saṃkarṣaṇa is equivalent to īśvara.
Moreover, in the Īśvarapratipattiprakāśa (ĪPP) attributed to Madhusūdana, Saṃkarṣaṇa is said to take the three forms of Viṣṇu, Brahmā, and Śiva. It is stated that Saṃkarṣaṇa takes the form of the above three deities according to the three properties of his
limiting condition.11) This corresponds to the trimūrtivāda as the second of the three
constituents of the interpretation of īśvara in Madhusūdana’s Advaita doctrine.
Consequently, we can conclude that for Madhusūdana Saṃkarṣaṇa is īśvara in so far as he fulfills both the basic definition of īśvara and the trimūrtivāda as outlined in the three constituents of the interpretation of īśvara in Madhusūdana’s Advaita doctrine.
4. Madhusūdana’s Interpretation of Kṛṣṇa
I will now turn to a consideration of Madhusūdana’s interpretation of Kṛṣṇa. There being no explanation given in the PP concerning the relationship of īśvara to Kṛṣṇa in
Madhusūdana’s Advaita doctrine, I will focus on the BhGGAD12) on BhG 4.6, in which
this relationship is discussed.
Not only can we confirm that Kṛṣṇa is īśvara in BhG 4.6,13) the BhGGAD mentions that
Kṛṣṇa has māyā as his limiting condition.14) Furthermore, māyā is said to consist of three
properties in both the BhG and the BhGGAD.15) Kṛṣṇa therefore meets the basic
definition of īśvara given in the three constituents of the interpretation of īśvara in Madhusūdana’s Advaita doctrine.
Next, the BhGGAD explains how Kṛṣṇa as īśvara comes into being on earth as follows:
Māyā is a non-conscious, inactive existence into which īśvara as conscious, active
existence is projected. In this manner, īśvara gives activity to māyā, governing it.16)
Moreover, īśvara through a particular alteration, i.e., a particular body17) caused by
māyā, appears to acquire a body even though he does not actually possess one and
appears to arise in the world even though he is not actually being born.18) In this
manner, īśvara appears as if having a body and as if being born.
On the orther hand, the BhGGAD stated that the body of īśvara does not consist of
elements.19) Thus arises the problem of what kind of body īśvara appears to be provided
with, that is to say, how the cognition that Kṛṣṇa is a human beings and so forth comes about. Madhusūdana’s answer to this difficulty is as follows: The cognition that Kṛṣṇa is a human and so forth arises from the confusions of the people. It is denied that Kṛṣṇa has the same alteration of māyā as actual human beings do, i.e., a body consisting of elements. Kṛṣṇa merely appears by means of māyā as if he were a human being in order
to bring grace to the people.20) And this implies that Kṛṣṇa fulfills the condition of the
avatāravāda, the third of the three constituents of the interpretation of īśvara in Advaita
doctrine.
Accordingly, Kṛṣṇa could be understood as īśvara in so far as he fulfills the first (i.e., the basic definition of īśvara) and third (i.e., the avatāravāda) constituents of the threefold interpretation of īśvara.
5. The Difference between Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa
The above makes it clear that both Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa fulfill the basic definition of
īśvara. And since there is only one īśvara in the world, it could be said that they are the
same existence.
However, while Saṃkarṣaṇa has the trimūrtivāda as his specific constituent, Kṛṣṇa has the avatāravāda. Because of this, it is likely that Madhusūdana differentiated Saṃkarṣaṇa from Kṛṣṇa. Now, what is the difference between them? I would like to raise the following two points.
The first difference between them concerns their respective roles. The role of īśvara in the trimūrtivāda is to preside over all of creation, its sustainment and its destruction according to the differences of the three properties. On the other hand, the role of
mentioned in (2), īśvara appears as the infinite avatāras to bestow grace upon the devotees.8)
3. Madhusūdana’s Interpretation of Saṃkarṣaṇa
I will now consider Madhusūdana’s interpretation of Saṃkarṣaṇa. In the PP, Madhusūdana makes the following points concerning Saṃkarṣaṇa: Saṃkarṣaṇa is the
pure caitanya conditioned by avyākṛta, the nature of māyā.9) And this māyā is said to
consist of three properties in both the PP and the SB.10) Thus Madhusūdana considers
Saṃkarṣaṇa as the pure caitanya conditioned by māyā, which in turn consists of three properties. This corresponds to the basic definition of īśvara given above as the first of the three constituents of Madhusūdana’s interpretation of īśvara in the context of his Advaita doctrine. Therefore, for Madhusūdana, Saṃkarṣaṇa is equivalent to īśvara.
Moreover, in the Īśvarapratipattiprakāśa (ĪPP) attributed to Madhusūdana, Saṃkarṣaṇa is said to take the three forms of Viṣṇu, Brahmā, and Śiva. It is stated that Saṃkarṣaṇa takes the form of the above three deities according to the three properties of his
limiting condition.11) This corresponds to the trimūrtivāda as the second of the three
constituents of the interpretation of īśvara in Madhusūdana’s Advaita doctrine.
Consequently, we can conclude that for Madhusūdana Saṃkarṣaṇa is īśvara in so far as he fulfills both the basic definition of īśvara and the trimūrtivāda as outlined in the three constituents of the interpretation of īśvara in Madhusūdana’s Advaita doctrine.
4. Madhusūdana’s Interpretation of Kṛṣṇa
I will now turn to a consideration of Madhusūdana’s interpretation of Kṛṣṇa. There being no explanation given in the PP concerning the relationship of īśvara to Kṛṣṇa in
Madhusūdana’s Advaita doctrine, I will focus on the BhGGAD12) on BhG 4.6, in which
this relationship is discussed.
Not only can we confirm that Kṛṣṇa is īśvara in BhG 4.6,13) the BhGGAD mentions that
Kṛṣṇa has māyā as his limiting condition.14) Furthermore, māyā is said to consist of three
properties in both the BhG and the BhGGAD.15) Kṛṣṇa therefore meets the basic
definition of īśvara given in the three constituents of the interpretation of īśvara in Madhusūdana’s Advaita doctrine.
Next, the BhGGAD explains how Kṛṣṇa as īśvara comes into being on earth as follows:
Māyā is a non-conscious, inactive existence into which īśvara as conscious, active
existence is projected. In this manner, īśvara gives activity to māyā, governing it.16)
Moreover, īśvara through a particular alteration, i.e., a particular body17) caused by
māyā, appears to acquire a body even though he does not actually possess one and
appears to arise in the world even though he is not actually being born.18) In this
manner, īśvara appears as if having a body and as if being born.
On the orther hand, the BhGGAD stated that the body of īśvara does not consist of
elements.19) Thus arises the problem of what kind of body īśvara appears to be provided
with, that is to say, how the cognition that Kṛṣṇa is a human beings and so forth comes about. Madhusūdana’s answer to this difficulty is as follows: The cognition that Kṛṣṇa is a human and so forth arises from the confusions of the people. It is denied that Kṛṣṇa has the same alteration of māyā as actual human beings do, i.e., a body consisting of elements. Kṛṣṇa merely appears by means of māyā as if he were a human being in order
to bring grace to the people.20) And this implies that Kṛṣṇa fulfills the condition of the
avatāravāda, the third of the three constituents of the interpretation of īśvara in Advaita
doctrine.
Accordingly, Kṛṣṇa could be understood as īśvara in so far as he fulfills the first (i.e., the basic definition of īśvara) and third (i.e., the avatāravāda) constituents of the threefold interpretation of īśvara.
5. The Difference between Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa
The above makes it clear that both Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa fulfill the basic definition of
īśvara. And since there is only one īśvara in the world, it could be said that they are the
same existence.
However, while Saṃkarṣaṇa has the trimūrtivāda as his specific constituent, Kṛṣṇa has the avatāravāda. Because of this, it is likely that Madhusūdana differentiated Saṃkarṣaṇa from Kṛṣṇa. Now, what is the difference between them? I would like to raise the following two points.
The first difference between them concerns their respective roles. The role of īśvara in the trimūrtivāda is to preside over all of creation, its sustainment and its destruction according to the differences of the three properties. On the other hand, the role of
The second difference is due to the relationship between īśvara and the people. Īśvara in the avatāravāda appears as if he were a human being and so forth, contacting the people directly.21) On the other hand, since īśvara in the trimūrtivāda neither has the
body consisting of elements nor appears as if he were a human beings, he does not contact the people directly.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said that Madhusūdana distinguished the same deity into the two separate deities Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa according to their respective roles and
discussed them in their respective contexts.22) Conversely, it could be suggested that
the three constituents of īśvara found in the SB23) formed by adding both the
trimūrtivāda in the case of Saṃkarṣaṇa and the avatāravāda in the case of Kṛṣṇa to the
basic definition of īśvara.
Notes
1）The four forms of Viṣṇu are Vāsudeva, Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. 2）See Manabe 2014, 2015.
3）PP 71,5–6: saṃkarṣaṇapradyumnāniruddhānāṃ svasamākhyayaiva pṛthagavatīrṇatvāt, vāsu‐ devāvatāra eva śrīkṛṣṇaḥ; PP 71,8: taṃ paraṃ satyaṃ vāsudevātmakaṃ śrīkṛṣṇaṃ vayaṃ dhyāye‐ ma.
4）In the SB, it is also stated that īśvara takes the three forms of Lakṣmī (Śrī), Sarasvatī (Bhāratī), and Pārvatī (Bhavānī). SB 351,3–366,1: evaṃ caikasyaiva caturbhujacaturmukhapañcamukhādyāḥ pumākārāḥ, śrībhāratībhavānyādyāś ca stryākārā. See Manabe 2016, 152–153. In this paper, since the female version of the trimūrti corresponds to the male version, I consider the female version of the trimūrti as included in my discussion of the male version.
5）In the later Advaita school, ajñāna is commonly understood as consisting of three properties. Additionally, in Madhusūdana’s works ajñāna, avidyā, and māyā are synonymous.
6）SB 53,5: kāraṇībhūtājñānopādhir īśvaraḥ.
7）SB 350,3–351,2: tatreśvaro ’pi trividhaḥ, svopādhibhūtāvidyāguṇatrayabhedena viṣṇubrahma‐ rudrabhedāt. kāraṇībhūtasattvaguṇāvacchinno viṣṇuḥ pālayitā. kāraṇībhūtarajaupahito brahmā sraṣṭā . . . kāraṇībhūtatamaupahito rudraḥ saṃhartā.
8）SB 365,1–366,2: anye ca matsyakūrmādayo ’nantāvatārā līlayaivāvirbhavanti bhaktānugra‐ hārtham ity avadheyam.
9）PP 69,13–15: sthūlasūkṣmakāraṇībhūtaṃ yan māyātmakam avyākṛtaṃ tadupahitaṃ śuddhaṃ caitanyaṃ tanniṣṭhacidābhāsopalakṣitam anujñeti saṃkarṣaṇa iti cākhyāyate.
10）PP 70,17–18: yad yatra triguṇātmakamāyāpratibimbasya jagatkāraṇasya bimbabhūte
sarvāntaryāmiṇi saṃkarṣaṇākhye.
11）ĪPP 7,23–8,2: ayam eva puruṣa īśvaraś ca prāg uktaḥ. etasyaiva bhedā brahmaviṣṇu‐ maheśvarāḥ, triguṇāvacchinna ekaikaguṇāvacchinnasyāntarbhāvāt. ata eva pṛthaṅ noktāḥ. 12）See Gambhīrānanda 2007 and Nelson 2007.
13）BhG 4.6: ajo ’pi sann avyayātmā bhūtānām īśvaro ’pi san / prakṛtiṃ svām adhiṣṭhāya saṃbha‐ vāmy ātmamāyayā //
14）BhGGAD 187,19–20: prakṛtiṃ svām adhiṣṭhāya saṃbhavāmi. prakṛtiṃ māyākhyāṃ vicitrānekaśaktim aghaṭamānaghaṭanāpaṭīyasīṃ svāṃ svopādhibhūtām adhiṣṭhāya cidābhāsena vaśīkṛtya saṃbhavāmi tatpariṇāmaviśeṣair eva dehavān iva jāta iva ca bhavāmi.
15）BhG 7.12–14: ye caiva sāttvikā bhāvā rājasās tāmasāś ca ye / matta eveti tān viddhi na tv ahaṃ teṣu te mayi //12// tribhir guṇamayair bhāvair ebhiḥ sarvam idaṃ jagat / mohitaṃ nābhijānāti mām ebhyaḥ param avyayam //13// daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā duratyayā / mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṃ taranti te //14//; BhGGAD 356,23–24 (on BhG 7.14): guṇamayī sattvarajastamoguṇatrayātmikā triguṇarajjur ivātidṛdhratvena bandhanahetuḥ.
16）This explanation is due to the Bhagavadgītāgūḍhārthatattvāloka (BhGGATĀ), a sub-commentary on the BhGGAD. BhGGATĀ 95,30–32: cidābhāsena vaśīkṛtyeti. acetanāyāṃ māyāyāṃ svataḥpra‐ vṛttyasaṃbhavāc cetanānadhiṣṭhitasyācetanasya vyāpārāyogād iti cidātmanaḥ svasyābhāsena pratibimbena pravṛttyanukūlacaitanyayogena cetanatvasaṃpādanena svecchayaiva tāṃ tatta‐ tpariṇāmānukūlapravṛttimatīṃ vidhāyety arthaḥ.
17）BhGGATĀ 95,32–33: pariṇāmaviśeṣair māyāmohitajanapratīyamānacaturbhujādivigraha‐ viśeṣair ity arthaḥ.
18）See n. 17.
19）BhGGAD 187,25: tarhi bhautikavigrahābhāvāt taddharmamanuṣyatvādipratītiḥ katham iti cet tatrāha ātmamāyayeti.
20）BhGGAD 187,25–188,15: manmāyayaiva mayi manuṣyatvādipratītir lokānugrahāya na tu vastuvṛttyeti bhāvaḥ.
21）“Contacting the people directly” means that for example, living things see īśvara as an avatāra with the naked eye or are blessed by direct grace.
22）“In their respective contexts” means “in the context of the vyūhavāda” and “in the context of the avatāravāda.” These two contexts are also those involved in ascetic training and soteriology. I think that for Madhusūdana there is a difference also in terms of ascetic training and soteriology between Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa. However, as this paper does not deal with the relevant sections, I want to discuss this issue on another occasion.
23）About this interpretation, see Manabe 2016. Abbreviations
BhG Bhagavadgītā. See BhGGAD.
BhGGAD Bhagavadgītāgūḍhārthadīpikā (Madhusūdana Sarasvatī). Srimadbhagavadgita with the Commentaries Śrīmadśānkarabhāṣya with Ānandagiri, Nīlakanṭhī, Bhāṣyotkarṣadīpikā of
The second difference is due to the relationship between īśvara and the people. Īśvara in the avatāravāda appears as if he were a human being and so forth, contacting the people directly.21) On the other hand, since īśvara in the trimūrtivāda neither has the
body consisting of elements nor appears as if he were a human beings, he does not contact the people directly.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said that Madhusūdana distinguished the same deity into the two separate deities Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa according to their respective roles and
discussed them in their respective contexts.22) Conversely, it could be suggested that
the three constituents of īśvara found in the SB23) formed by adding both the
trimūrtivāda in the case of Saṃkarṣaṇa and the avatāravāda in the case of Kṛṣṇa to the
basic definition of īśvara.
Notes
1）The four forms of Viṣṇu are Vāsudeva, Saṃkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. 2）See Manabe 2014, 2015.
3）PP 71,5–6: saṃkarṣaṇapradyumnāniruddhānāṃ svasamākhyayaiva pṛthagavatīrṇatvāt, vāsu‐ devāvatāra eva śrīkṛṣṇaḥ; PP 71,8: taṃ paraṃ satyaṃ vāsudevātmakaṃ śrīkṛṣṇaṃ vayaṃ dhyāye‐ ma.
4）In the SB, it is also stated that īśvara takes the three forms of Lakṣmī (Śrī), Sarasvatī (Bhāratī), and Pārvatī (Bhavānī). SB 351,3–366,1: evaṃ caikasyaiva caturbhujacaturmukhapañcamukhādyāḥ pumākārāḥ, śrībhāratībhavānyādyāś ca stryākārā. See Manabe 2016, 152–153. In this paper, since the female version of the trimūrti corresponds to the male version, I consider the female version of the trimūrti as included in my discussion of the male version.
5）In the later Advaita school, ajñāna is commonly understood as consisting of three properties. Additionally, in Madhusūdana’s works ajñāna, avidyā, and māyā are synonymous.
6）SB 53,5: kāraṇībhūtājñānopādhir īśvaraḥ.
7）SB 350,3–351,2: tatreśvaro ’pi trividhaḥ, svopādhibhūtāvidyāguṇatrayabhedena viṣṇubrahma‐ rudrabhedāt. kāraṇībhūtasattvaguṇāvacchinno viṣṇuḥ pālayitā. kāraṇībhūtarajaupahito brahmā sraṣṭā . . . kāraṇībhūtatamaupahito rudraḥ saṃhartā.
8）SB 365,1–366,2: anye ca matsyakūrmādayo ’nantāvatārā līlayaivāvirbhavanti bhaktānugra‐ hārtham ity avadheyam.
9）PP 69,13–15: sthūlasūkṣmakāraṇībhūtaṃ yan māyātmakam avyākṛtaṃ tadupahitaṃ śuddhaṃ caitanyaṃ tanniṣṭhacidābhāsopalakṣitam anujñeti saṃkarṣaṇa iti cākhyāyate.
10）PP 70,17–18: yad yatra triguṇātmakamāyāpratibimbasya jagatkāraṇasya bimbabhūte
sarvāntaryāmiṇi saṃkarṣaṇākhye.
11）ĪPP 7,23–8,2: ayam eva puruṣa īśvaraś ca prāg uktaḥ. etasyaiva bhedā brahmaviṣṇu‐ maheśvarāḥ, triguṇāvacchinna ekaikaguṇāvacchinnasyāntarbhāvāt. ata eva pṛthaṅ noktāḥ. 12）See Gambhīrānanda 2007 and Nelson 2007.
13）BhG 4.6: ajo ’pi sann avyayātmā bhūtānām īśvaro ’pi san / prakṛtiṃ svām adhiṣṭhāya saṃbha‐ vāmy ātmamāyayā //
14）BhGGAD 187,19–20: prakṛtiṃ svām adhiṣṭhāya saṃbhavāmi. prakṛtiṃ māyākhyāṃ vicitrānekaśaktim aghaṭamānaghaṭanāpaṭīyasīṃ svāṃ svopādhibhūtām adhiṣṭhāya cidābhāsena vaśīkṛtya saṃbhavāmi tatpariṇāmaviśeṣair eva dehavān iva jāta iva ca bhavāmi.
15）BhG 7.12–14: ye caiva sāttvikā bhāvā rājasās tāmasāś ca ye / matta eveti tān viddhi na tv ahaṃ teṣu te mayi //12// tribhir guṇamayair bhāvair ebhiḥ sarvam idaṃ jagat / mohitaṃ nābhijānāti mām ebhyaḥ param avyayam //13// daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī mama māyā duratyayā / mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etāṃ taranti te //14//; BhGGAD 356,23–24 (on BhG 7.14): guṇamayī sattvarajastamoguṇatrayātmikā triguṇarajjur ivātidṛdhratvena bandhanahetuḥ.
16）This explanation is due to the Bhagavadgītāgūḍhārthatattvāloka (BhGGATĀ), a sub-commentary on the BhGGAD. BhGGATĀ 95,30–32: cidābhāsena vaśīkṛtyeti. acetanāyāṃ māyāyāṃ svataḥpra‐ vṛttyasaṃbhavāc cetanānadhiṣṭhitasyācetanasya vyāpārāyogād iti cidātmanaḥ svasyābhāsena pratibimbena pravṛttyanukūlacaitanyayogena cetanatvasaṃpādanena svecchayaiva tāṃ tatta‐ tpariṇāmānukūlapravṛttimatīṃ vidhāyety arthaḥ.
17）BhGGATĀ 95,32–33: pariṇāmaviśeṣair māyāmohitajanapratīyamānacaturbhujādivigraha‐ viśeṣair ity arthaḥ.
18）See n. 17.
19）BhGGAD 187,25: tarhi bhautikavigrahābhāvāt taddharmamanuṣyatvādipratītiḥ katham iti cet tatrāha ātmamāyayeti.
20）BhGGAD 187,25–188,15: manmāyayaiva mayi manuṣyatvādipratītir lokānugrahāya na tu vastuvṛttyeti bhāvaḥ.
21）“Contacting the people directly” means that for example, living things see īśvara as an avatāra with the naked eye or are blessed by direct grace.
22）“In their respective contexts” means “in the context of the vyūhavāda” and “in the context of the avatāravāda.” These two contexts are also those involved in ascetic training and soteriology. I think that for Madhusūdana there is a difference also in terms of ascetic training and soteriology between Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa. However, as this paper does not deal with the relevant sections, I want to discuss this issue on another occasion.
23）About this interpretation, see Manabe 2016. Abbreviations
BhG Bhagavadgītā. See BhGGAD.
BhGGAD Bhagavadgītāgūḍhārthadīpikā (Madhusūdana Sarasvatī). Srimadbhagavadgita with the Commentaries Śrīmadśānkarabhāṣya with Ānandagiri, Nīlakanṭhī, Bhāṣyotkarṣadīpikā of
Dhanapati, Śrīdharī, Gītārthasaṃgraha of Abhinavaguptācārya, and Gūḍhārthadīpikā of Madhusūdana with Gūḍhārthatattvāloka of Śrīdharmadattaśarmā (Bhachchāśramā). Ed. Wāsudev Laxmaṇ Shāstrī Paṇśīkar. 2nd ed. Bombay: Nirṇaya Sāgar Press, 1936. BhGGATĀ Bhagavadgītāgūḍhārthatattvāloka (Śrīdharmadattaśarmā): See BhGGAD.
ĪPP Īśvarapratipattiprakāśa (Madhusūdhana Sarasvatī). The Īśvarapratipattiprakāśa by Madhusūdanasarasvatī. Ed. T. Gaṇapati Sāstrī. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, no. LXXIII. Trivandrum: The Superintendent, Government Press, 1921.
PP Paramahaṃsapriyā (Madhusūdana Sarasvatī). The Harilīlāmṛtam by Śrī Bopadeva with Commentary by Śrī Madhusūdana Sarasvatī and Śrī Bhāgavata (First Śloka) with the Paramahaṃsapriyā Commentary by the Same Commentator. Ed. Parajuli Pandit Devi Datta Upadhyaya. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, no. 411. Benares: The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1933.
SB Siddhāntabindu (Madhusūdana Sarasvatī). Siddhāntabindu of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī: Being a Commentary on the Daśaślokī of Śaṅkarāchārya with Two Commentaries Nyāya Ratnāvalī of Gaudabrahmānanda and Laghuvyākhyā of Nārāyaṇa Tīrtha. Ed. Tryambakram Śāstrī Vedāntāchārya. 2nd ed. The Kashi Sanskrit Series 65. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, 1989.
Bibliography
Gambhīrānanda, Swāmī, trans. 2007. Bhagavad-Gītā with the Annotation Gūḍhārtha-Dīpikā by Madhusūdana Sarasvati. Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama.
Manabe Tomohiro 眞鍋智裕. 2014. “Madusūdana Sarasuvatī no vyūha-setsu sesshu no hōhō: Shankara no shosetsu to no taihi kara” マドゥスーダナ・サラスヴァティーの vyūha 説摂取 の方法: シャンカラの所説との対比から. Kuon: Kenkyū ronbunshū 久遠: 研究論文集 5: 1–19. ———. 2015. “Īśvarapratipattiprakāśa ni okeru shoshusaishin-ron no tōgō hōhō no kaimei”
Īśvarapratipattiprakāśa における諸主宰神論の統合方法の解明. Waseda Rilas Journal 3: 29–38. ———. 2016. “Madusūdana Sarasuvatī no shusaishin-ron keisei ni kansuru ichikōsatsu” マドゥ
スーダナ・サラスヴァティーの主宰神論形成に関する一考察. Minami Ajia kotengaku 南アジ ア古典学 11: 147–168.
Nelson, Lance E. 2007. “Krishna in Advaita Vedanta: The Supreme Brahman in Human Form.” In Krishna: A Sourcebook, ed. Edwin F. Bryant, 309–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Key words Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, Saṃkarṣaṇa, Kṛṣṇa, Paramahaṃsapriyā, Bhagavadgītāgū‐ ḍhārthadīpikā
（Part-time Lecturer, Waseda University, Litt.D.）
Jaina Studies in Japan since the 1990s
Akamatsu Akihiko
1. Ludwig Alsdorf ’s Paris Lectures in 1965
In March and April 1965, Alsdorf Lectured four times at the Collège de France in Paris. These lectures were published as a pamphlet entitled Les études jaina: État présent et
tâches futures (Jaina Studies: Their Present State and Future Tasks). This was a turning
point in modern Jaina Studies in Japan as well as in Europe. Alsdorf regarded Jaina studies not as “a complementary science of Buddhology” but as “an independent branch which is of extensive and varied interest within Indology” (Alsdorf 1965, 6; 2006, 10). He showed what tasks needed to be achieved by Jaina studies in the future through the following lectures: (1) a systematic linguistic study of the Śvetāmbara canonical texts; (2) a study of the terminology used in these texts [in the first lecture (Alsdorf 1965, 1–25)]; (3) publication of the complete critical European editions of Jaina canons; (4) utilization of the commentaries and discussion of the wrong Sanskritizations in the commentaries for unintelligible Prākrit words; (5) accomplishment of “critique supérieure” (higher criticism), which makes it possible to determine the history and the reciprocal relationship of texts for the study of the history of religions and of philosophy [in the second lecture (pp. 25–50)]; (6) use of metrical criteria (esp. āryā metre) for establishing critical editions of Jaina texts [in the third lecture (pp. 51–72)]; (7) the application of the chronological criterion provided by the āryā metre to the
Uttarajjhāyā; (8) discussion on the doctrine of the leśyā and the relationship of Jainism
with the doctrine of the Ājīvikas; (9) the resumption of Ernst Leumann’s studies on the Āvaśyaka; and (10) a focus on the studies of Digambaras [in the fourth lecture (pp. 72– 97)].
I will examine Japanese studies that respond to the Alsdorf’s propositions. In this article, I will describe the research outcomes chiefly written in Japanese since the 1990s
